About your Search

20130115
20130123
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. whether the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. where the answer is no, programs will end. and those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. the success our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gdp, but on the reach of our prosperity, on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to common good. as for our common defense, we reject as false the
be a reasonableness balancing test, but i think the government interest on the side of that balance would be very different from the ones at issue here. you know, the court here has said that drunk driving is a serious public safety problem. we're talking about one person being killed every 51 minutes, despite everything we've done in the last 3 decades. justice kagan: so it's not just exigency that you're -- you're saying that there should be a weighing of the costs and benefits here. ms. saharsky: yes. that's what the court did in schmerber. it looked at the intrusiveness of the blood test in this context and then it looked at the government's need for the evidence. and the need for the evidence in the cases you're positing we suspect the court would not think as strong as the evidence here. but just to get back to some of the questions the court has had about the time to get warrants, i mean, the evidence that the court has before it is that it would take at least an hour and a half to two hours to get a warrant here. that's in the joint appendix, page 54. even though the person said -- one of
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)